Background
This case emerges from a dispute concerning the conduct of primary elections held by the All Progressives Congress (APC) for the Kankara/Faskari/Sabuwa Federal Constituency of Katsina State on May 27, 2022. The appellant, Murtala Isa, alleged that the primaries were improperly conducted due to the actions of the 1st respondent's representatives, including intimidation by thugs and irregularities in delegate attendance, which he claimed led to the wrongful declaration of Shehu Dalhatu Tafoki as the winner.
Issues
The central issues presented in this case included:
- Whether the lower courts correctly evaluated the appellant’s evidence regarding the primary election.
- The standard of proof required to substantiate allegations of misconduct during the primary elections.
- The admissibility and sufficiency of affidavit evidence in proving claims of electoral violence and misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that:
- For an appeal challenging concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, the appellant carries the burden of presenting exceptional circumstances to justify interference with those findings.
- An appellant must establish his case based on the strength of his evidence without relying on the weaknesses in the defense.
- Allegations of crime included in affidavit evidence are not adequately resolved by affidavit alone and require substantive proof.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that:
- The lower courts found that the elections indeed took place as scheduled on May 27, 2022, implying the necessary evaluation of conflicts in testimonies.
- Evidence provided by the appellant was insufficient and speculative, particularly the claims regarding the presence of thugs, which lacked corroboration or direct evidence linking the supposed perpetrators to the events described.
- Documentary evidence presented by the respondents, including official electoral reports and lists of certified delegates, substantiated their claims that a lawful primary election occurred.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the appellant's claims were unsupported by credible evidence and that both lower courts had adequately fulfilled their duties in evaluating the evidence and the legal requirements. The appeal was thus dismissed, with costs borne by the respective parties involved.
Significance
This judgement underscores the importance of providing substantial evidence when allegations of electoral misconduct are made. It reaffirms the legal principle that mere allegations, especially those implying criminal conduct, cannot suffice without corroborating evidence, especially in electoral matters governed by statutory provisions like the Electoral Act, 2022.